Hematology News

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

Although deployment of hospitalists into ICUs during the COVID-19 crisis varies widely, in that sense it reflects the pre-COVID hospital landscape of variable involvement, in which many hospitalists pressed into this role expressed discomfort practicing critical care beyond their scope of training, according to a survey published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in 2018.¹ “Hospitalists frequently deliver critical care services without adequate training or support, most prevalently in rural hospitals,” the authors concluded.

A Critical Care for the Hospitalist Series of resources and lectures developed by Eric Siegal, MD, a pulmonologist in Milwaukee, Wisc., and David Aymond, MD, a hospitalist in Alexandria, La., is available on the SHM website. They recommend that hospitalists trying to get oriented to working in the ICU start with the online courses on fluid resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and noninvasive ventilation.

“Ninety-five percent of management of COVID-19 patients is nothing other than practicing sound critical care medicine,” Dr. Siegal said. “If you want to take effective care of sick COVID patients, you need to develop good foundational critical care skills and knowledge. Without them, you’re doing stuff without understand it.”

Dr. Aymond also encourages hospitalists to develop a stronger understanding of key physiological concepts by reviewing the critical care clinical topics compiled at SHM’s website.

References

1. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan;13(1):6-12.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

It’s official: COVID-19 is bad for your health care business

For the months of March and April 2020, use of medical professional services dropped by 65% and 68%, respectively, compared with last year, and estimated revenue fell by 45% and 48%, FAIR Health, a nonprofit organization that manages a database of 31 billion claim records, said in a new report.

Of the seven specialties included in the study, oral surgery was hit the hardest, followed by gastroenterology, cardiology, orthopedics, dermatology, adult primary care, and pediatric primary care, FAIR Health said.

“Even when medical practices have continued to function via telehealth, many have experienced lower reimbursements for telehealth visits than for in-person visits and more time educating patients on how to use the technology,” according to the report. Read more.

 

FDA revokes emergency use of hydroxychloroquine

The FDA revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

"Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19," the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

"In light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use," noted the FDA. Read more.

Secondary infections common in COVID-19, implications unclear

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most physicians aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection."

An early retrospective cohort study including 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China found that of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. physicians, who learned in training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP. Read more.

Automated insulin delivery system ‘getting better and better’

Medtronic’s next-generation automated insulin delivery system offers significant improvements over the currently available model, particularly in young people with type 1 diabetes, new data suggest. 

Data from three trials of such systems using Medtronic’s advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm (trade name SmartGuard) were presented during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions. 

Taken together, the data from the three trials showed that the AHCL-based system improved glycemic time-in-range with no increased risk for hypoglycemia, including in children and teenagers, with high patient-reported satisfaction.

“None of these devices is perfect, but they are a substantial improvement over what we’ve had ... They might make the quality of [patient] lives better. That’s really underappreciated,” session moderator Timothy S. Bailey, MD, commented. Read more.

Access more top news from the ADA virtual meeting.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

It’s official: COVID-19 is bad for your health care business

For the months of March and April 2020, use of medical professional services dropped by 65% and 68%, respectively, compared with last year, and estimated revenue fell by 45% and 48%, FAIR Health, a nonprofit organization that manages a database of 31 billion claim records, said in a new report.

Of the seven specialties included in the study, oral surgery was hit the hardest, followed by gastroenterology, cardiology, orthopedics, dermatology, adult primary care, and pediatric primary care, FAIR Health said.

“Even when medical practices have continued to function via telehealth, many have experienced lower reimbursements for telehealth visits than for in-person visits and more time educating patients on how to use the technology,” according to the report. Read more.

 

FDA revokes emergency use of hydroxychloroquine

The FDA revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

"Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19," the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

"In light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use," noted the FDA. Read more.

Secondary infections common in COVID-19, implications unclear

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most physicians aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection."

An early retrospective cohort study including 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China found that of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. physicians, who learned in training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP. Read more.

Automated insulin delivery system ‘getting better and better’

Medtronic’s next-generation automated insulin delivery system offers significant improvements over the currently available model, particularly in young people with type 1 diabetes, new data suggest. 

Data from three trials of such systems using Medtronic’s advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm (trade name SmartGuard) were presented during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions. 

Taken together, the data from the three trials showed that the AHCL-based system improved glycemic time-in-range with no increased risk for hypoglycemia, including in children and teenagers, with high patient-reported satisfaction.

“None of these devices is perfect, but they are a substantial improvement over what we’ve had ... They might make the quality of [patient] lives better. That’s really underappreciated,” session moderator Timothy S. Bailey, MD, commented. Read more.

Access more top news from the ADA virtual meeting.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

It’s official: COVID-19 is bad for your health care business

For the months of March and April 2020, use of medical professional services dropped by 65% and 68%, respectively, compared with last year, and estimated revenue fell by 45% and 48%, FAIR Health, a nonprofit organization that manages a database of 31 billion claim records, said in a new report.

Of the seven specialties included in the study, oral surgery was hit the hardest, followed by gastroenterology, cardiology, orthopedics, dermatology, adult primary care, and pediatric primary care, FAIR Health said.

“Even when medical practices have continued to function via telehealth, many have experienced lower reimbursements for telehealth visits than for in-person visits and more time educating patients on how to use the technology,” according to the report. Read more.

 

FDA revokes emergency use of hydroxychloroquine

The FDA revoked its decision from March 28 allowing use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat people hospitalized with COVID-19 under an emergency use authorization (EUA).

"Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19," the agency announced in a June 15 statement.

"In light of ongoing serious cardiac adverse events and other potential serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for the authorized use," noted the FDA. Read more.

Secondary infections common in COVID-19, implications unclear

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most physicians aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection."

An early retrospective cohort study including 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China found that of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. physicians, who learned in training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP. Read more.

Automated insulin delivery system ‘getting better and better’

Medtronic’s next-generation automated insulin delivery system offers significant improvements over the currently available model, particularly in young people with type 1 diabetes, new data suggest. 

Data from three trials of such systems using Medtronic’s advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) algorithm (trade name SmartGuard) were presented during the virtual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 80th Scientific Sessions. 

Taken together, the data from the three trials showed that the AHCL-based system improved glycemic time-in-range with no increased risk for hypoglycemia, including in children and teenagers, with high patient-reported satisfaction.

“None of these devices is perfect, but they are a substantial improvement over what we’ve had ... They might make the quality of [patient] lives better. That’s really underappreciated,” session moderator Timothy S. Bailey, MD, commented. Read more.

Access more top news from the ADA virtual meeting.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Six of eight relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia patients, and one patient with accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia, had no sign of residual disease 4 weeks after receiving compound CAR T therapy targeting both CD33 and CLL1.

Six patients moved on to subsequent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); the seventh responder withdrew from the study for personal reasons, according to a report at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Much work remains, but the initial results suggest that “CLL1-CD33 compound CAR T cell therapy could be developed as a bridge to transplant, a supplement to chemotherapy, or a standalone therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia” and other myeloid malignancies. The approach might also allow for reduced intensity conditioning or nonmyeloablative conditioning for HSCT, said lead investigator Fang Liu, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology at the Chengdu Military General Hospital, in Sichuan province, China.

It’s “a topic that will interest a lot of us.” For the first time, “a compound CAR with two independent CAR units induced remissions in AML,” said Pieter Sonneveld, MD, PhD, of the Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who introduced Dr. Liu’s presentation.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy works well for B-cell malignancies, but translation to AML is “yet to be accomplished.” Meanwhile, despite progress against AML, about one-third of patients still relapse, “and prognosis for relapsed or refractory AML is dismal,” Dr. Liu and her team said.

CAR T is generally aimed against a single target, but AML bears heterogeneous cells that offset killing by single target therapies, resulting in disease relapse.

That problem suggested targeting multiple antigens simultaneously. CLL1 is an “ideal target,” Dr. Liu said, because the myeloid lineage antigen is highly expressed in AML, but absent in normal hematopoietic stem cells. CD33, meanwhile, is expressed on bulk AML cells in the majority of patients.

The CAR T cells were manufactured from autologous cells in eight of the subjects, and from a human leukocyte antigen-matched sibling donor cells for the ninth. The patients were lymphodepleted with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, then infused with the therapeutic cells by a dose escalation at approximately 1-3 x 10⁶/kg in a single or split dose.

On disease reevaluation within 4 weeks, seven of nine patients – all with relapsed or refractory disease after multiple conventional treatments – were minimal residual disease negative by flow cytometry. The other two had no response, one of whom was CD33 positive but CLL1 negative, “indicating the importance of [the] CLL1 target in CAR T treatment,” the investigators said.

All nine patients developed grade 4 pancytopenia; eight had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which was grade 3 in two; and four subjects developed neurotoxicity, which was grade 3 in three.

Five subjects had mild liver enzyme elevations; four had a coagulation disorder; four developed diarrhea; three developed sepsis; two fungal infections; and three pneumonia. One subject had a skin rash and one developed renal insufficiency.

The adverse events resolved after treatment. “Early intervention with steroids had a positive effect on the reduction of CRS and neurotoxicity,” the team noted.

Of the six patients who went on to HCST, one had standard myeloablative conditioning, but the rest had reduced intensity conditioning. Five subjects successfully engrafted with persistent full chimerism, but one died of sepsis before engraftment.

The median age was 32 years. The median bone marrow blast count before treatment was 47%. Seven subjects had de novo AML; one – a 6-year-old girl – had juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia that transformed into AML; and one had accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia.

A phase 1 trial is underway (NCT03795779).

The work was funded by iCell Gene Therapeutics. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Liu didn’t report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Liu F et al. EHA Congress. Abstract S149.

Six of eight relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia patients, and one patient with accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia, had no sign of residual disease 4 weeks after receiving compound CAR T therapy targeting both CD33 and CLL1.

Six patients moved on to subsequent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); the seventh responder withdrew from the study for personal reasons, according to a report at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Much work remains, but the initial results suggest that “CLL1-CD33 compound CAR T cell therapy could be developed as a bridge to transplant, a supplement to chemotherapy, or a standalone therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia” and other myeloid malignancies. The approach might also allow for reduced intensity conditioning or nonmyeloablative conditioning for HSCT, said lead investigator Fang Liu, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology at the Chengdu Military General Hospital, in Sichuan province, China.

It’s “a topic that will interest a lot of us.” For the first time, “a compound CAR with two independent CAR units induced remissions in AML,” said Pieter Sonneveld, MD, PhD, of the Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who introduced Dr. Liu’s presentation.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy works well for B-cell malignancies, but translation to AML is “yet to be accomplished.” Meanwhile, despite progress against AML, about one-third of patients still relapse, “and prognosis for relapsed or refractory AML is dismal,” Dr. Liu and her team said.

CAR T is generally aimed against a single target, but AML bears heterogeneous cells that offset killing by single target therapies, resulting in disease relapse.

That problem suggested targeting multiple antigens simultaneously. CLL1 is an “ideal target,” Dr. Liu said, because the myeloid lineage antigen is highly expressed in AML, but absent in normal hematopoietic stem cells. CD33, meanwhile, is expressed on bulk AML cells in the majority of patients.

The CAR T cells were manufactured from autologous cells in eight of the subjects, and from a human leukocyte antigen-matched sibling donor cells for the ninth. The patients were lymphodepleted with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, then infused with the therapeutic cells by a dose escalation at approximately 1-3 x 10⁶/kg in a single or split dose.

On disease reevaluation within 4 weeks, seven of nine patients – all with relapsed or refractory disease after multiple conventional treatments – were minimal residual disease negative by flow cytometry. The other two had no response, one of whom was CD33 positive but CLL1 negative, “indicating the importance of [the] CLL1 target in CAR T treatment,” the investigators said.

All nine patients developed grade 4 pancytopenia; eight had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which was grade 3 in two; and four subjects developed neurotoxicity, which was grade 3 in three.

Five subjects had mild liver enzyme elevations; four had a coagulation disorder; four developed diarrhea; three developed sepsis; two fungal infections; and three pneumonia. One subject had a skin rash and one developed renal insufficiency.

The adverse events resolved after treatment. “Early intervention with steroids had a positive effect on the reduction of CRS and neurotoxicity,” the team noted.

Of the six patients who went on to HCST, one had standard myeloablative conditioning, but the rest had reduced intensity conditioning. Five subjects successfully engrafted with persistent full chimerism, but one died of sepsis before engraftment.

The median age was 32 years. The median bone marrow blast count before treatment was 47%. Seven subjects had de novo AML; one – a 6-year-old girl – had juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia that transformed into AML; and one had accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia.

A phase 1 trial is underway (NCT03795779).

The work was funded by iCell Gene Therapeutics. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Liu didn’t report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Liu F et al. EHA Congress. Abstract S149.

Six of eight relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia patients, and one patient with accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia, had no sign of residual disease 4 weeks after receiving compound CAR T therapy targeting both CD33 and CLL1.

Six patients moved on to subsequent hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT); the seventh responder withdrew from the study for personal reasons, according to a report at the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

Much work remains, but the initial results suggest that “CLL1-CD33 compound CAR T cell therapy could be developed as a bridge to transplant, a supplement to chemotherapy, or a standalone therapy for patients with acute myeloid leukemia” and other myeloid malignancies. The approach might also allow for reduced intensity conditioning or nonmyeloablative conditioning for HSCT, said lead investigator Fang Liu, MD, PhD, of the department of hematology at the Chengdu Military General Hospital, in Sichuan province, China.

It’s “a topic that will interest a lot of us.” For the first time, “a compound CAR with two independent CAR units induced remissions in AML,” said Pieter Sonneveld, MD, PhD, of the Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who introduced Dr. Liu’s presentation.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy works well for B-cell malignancies, but translation to AML is “yet to be accomplished.” Meanwhile, despite progress against AML, about one-third of patients still relapse, “and prognosis for relapsed or refractory AML is dismal,” Dr. Liu and her team said.

CAR T is generally aimed against a single target, but AML bears heterogeneous cells that offset killing by single target therapies, resulting in disease relapse.

That problem suggested targeting multiple antigens simultaneously. CLL1 is an “ideal target,” Dr. Liu said, because the myeloid lineage antigen is highly expressed in AML, but absent in normal hematopoietic stem cells. CD33, meanwhile, is expressed on bulk AML cells in the majority of patients.

The CAR T cells were manufactured from autologous cells in eight of the subjects, and from a human leukocyte antigen-matched sibling donor cells for the ninth. The patients were lymphodepleted with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide, then infused with the therapeutic cells by a dose escalation at approximately 1-3 x 10⁶/kg in a single or split dose.

On disease reevaluation within 4 weeks, seven of nine patients – all with relapsed or refractory disease after multiple conventional treatments – were minimal residual disease negative by flow cytometry. The other two had no response, one of whom was CD33 positive but CLL1 negative, “indicating the importance of [the] CLL1 target in CAR T treatment,” the investigators said.

All nine patients developed grade 4 pancytopenia; eight had cytokine release syndrome (CRS), which was grade 3 in two; and four subjects developed neurotoxicity, which was grade 3 in three.

Five subjects had mild liver enzyme elevations; four had a coagulation disorder; four developed diarrhea; three developed sepsis; two fungal infections; and three pneumonia. One subject had a skin rash and one developed renal insufficiency.

The adverse events resolved after treatment. “Early intervention with steroids had a positive effect on the reduction of CRS and neurotoxicity,” the team noted.

Of the six patients who went on to HCST, one had standard myeloablative conditioning, but the rest had reduced intensity conditioning. Five subjects successfully engrafted with persistent full chimerism, but one died of sepsis before engraftment.

The median age was 32 years. The median bone marrow blast count before treatment was 47%. Seven subjects had de novo AML; one – a 6-year-old girl – had juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia that transformed into AML; and one had accelerated phase chronic myelogenous leukemia.

A phase 1 trial is underway (NCT03795779).

The work was funded by iCell Gene Therapeutics. Several investigators were employees. Dr. Liu didn’t report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Liu F et al. EHA Congress. Abstract S149.

Optimizing glycemic control “is the key to overall treatment in people with diabetes and COVID-19,” said Antonio Ceriello, MD, during a June 5 webinar sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Boston.

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstockphotos.com

Dr. Ceriello, a research consultant with the Italian Ministry of Health, IRCCS Multi-Medica, Milan, highlighted a recent study that examined the association of blood glucose control and outcomes in COVID-19 patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

Among 7,000 cases of COVID-19, type 2 diabetes correlated with a higher death rate. However, those with well-controlled blood glucose (upper limit ≤10 mmol/L) had a survival rate of 98.9%, compared with just 11% among those with poorly controlled blood glucose (upper limit >10 mmol/L), a reduction in risk of 86% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.14; Cell Metab. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.04.021).

Clinicians should also consider the possible side effects of hypoglycemic agents in the evolution of this disease. This is true of all patients, not just diabetes patients, Dr. Ceriello said. “We have data showing that ... hyperglycemia contributes directly to worsening the prognosis of COVID-19 independent of the presence of diabetes.”

One study found that the glycosylation of ACE-2 played an important role in allowing cellular entry of the virus (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Mar 31;318:E736-41). “This is something that could be related to hyperglycemia,” he added.

Another risk factor is thrombosis, a clear contributor to death rates in COVID-19. Research on thrombosis incidence in COVID-19 patients with diabetes reported higher levels of D-dimer levels in people with diabetes, especially among those who couldn’t manage their disease.

Tying all of these factors together, Dr. Ceriello discussed how ACE-2 glycosylation, in combination with other factors in SARS-CoV-2 infection, could lead to hyperglycemia, thrombosis, and subsequently multiorgan damage in diabetes patients.

Other research has associated higher HbA1c levels (mean HbA1c, 7.5%) with higher mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, said another speaker, Linong Ji, MD, director for endocrinology and metabolism at Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, and director of Peking University’s Diabetes Center. Proper guidance is key to ensuring early detection of hyperglycemic crisis in people with diabetes, advised Dr. Ji.

Global management of diabetes in SARS-CoV-2 patients is “quite challenging,” given that most patients don’t have their diabetes under control, said host and moderator A. Enrique Caballero, MD, an endocrinologist/investigator in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension and division of global health equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are not meeting treatment targets for cholesterol or glucose control. So we’re not managing optimal care. And now on top of this, we have COVID-19.”

Optimizing glycemic control “is the key to overall treatment in people with diabetes and COVID-19,” said Antonio Ceriello, MD, during a June 5 webinar sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Boston.

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstockphotos.com

Dr. Ceriello, a research consultant with the Italian Ministry of Health, IRCCS Multi-Medica, Milan, highlighted a recent study that examined the association of blood glucose control and outcomes in COVID-19 patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

Among 7,000 cases of COVID-19, type 2 diabetes correlated with a higher death rate. However, those with well-controlled blood glucose (upper limit ≤10 mmol/L) had a survival rate of 98.9%, compared with just 11% among those with poorly controlled blood glucose (upper limit >10 mmol/L), a reduction in risk of 86% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.14; Cell Metab. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.04.021).

Clinicians should also consider the possible side effects of hypoglycemic agents in the evolution of this disease. This is true of all patients, not just diabetes patients, Dr. Ceriello said. “We have data showing that ... hyperglycemia contributes directly to worsening the prognosis of COVID-19 independent of the presence of diabetes.”

One study found that the glycosylation of ACE-2 played an important role in allowing cellular entry of the virus (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Mar 31;318:E736-41). “This is something that could be related to hyperglycemia,” he added.

Another risk factor is thrombosis, a clear contributor to death rates in COVID-19. Research on thrombosis incidence in COVID-19 patients with diabetes reported higher levels of D-dimer levels in people with diabetes, especially among those who couldn’t manage their disease.

Tying all of these factors together, Dr. Ceriello discussed how ACE-2 glycosylation, in combination with other factors in SARS-CoV-2 infection, could lead to hyperglycemia, thrombosis, and subsequently multiorgan damage in diabetes patients.

Other research has associated higher HbA1c levels (mean HbA1c, 7.5%) with higher mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, said another speaker, Linong Ji, MD, director for endocrinology and metabolism at Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, and director of Peking University’s Diabetes Center. Proper guidance is key to ensuring early detection of hyperglycemic crisis in people with diabetes, advised Dr. Ji.

Global management of diabetes in SARS-CoV-2 patients is “quite challenging,” given that most patients don’t have their diabetes under control, said host and moderator A. Enrique Caballero, MD, an endocrinologist/investigator in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension and division of global health equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are not meeting treatment targets for cholesterol or glucose control. So we’re not managing optimal care. And now on top of this, we have COVID-19.”

Optimizing glycemic control “is the key to overall treatment in people with diabetes and COVID-19,” said Antonio Ceriello, MD, during a June 5 webinar sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Boston.

©Tashatuvango/Thinkstockphotos.com

Dr. Ceriello, a research consultant with the Italian Ministry of Health, IRCCS Multi-Medica, Milan, highlighted a recent study that examined the association of blood glucose control and outcomes in COVID-19 patients with preexisting type 2 diabetes.

Among 7,000 cases of COVID-19, type 2 diabetes correlated with a higher death rate. However, those with well-controlled blood glucose (upper limit ≤10 mmol/L) had a survival rate of 98.9%, compared with just 11% among those with poorly controlled blood glucose (upper limit >10 mmol/L), a reduction in risk of 86% (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.14; Cell Metab. 2020 May 1. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.04.021).

Clinicians should also consider the possible side effects of hypoglycemic agents in the evolution of this disease. This is true of all patients, not just diabetes patients, Dr. Ceriello said. “We have data showing that ... hyperglycemia contributes directly to worsening the prognosis of COVID-19 independent of the presence of diabetes.”

One study found that the glycosylation of ACE-2 played an important role in allowing cellular entry of the virus (Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2020 Mar 31;318:E736-41). “This is something that could be related to hyperglycemia,” he added.

Another risk factor is thrombosis, a clear contributor to death rates in COVID-19. Research on thrombosis incidence in COVID-19 patients with diabetes reported higher levels of D-dimer levels in people with diabetes, especially among those who couldn’t manage their disease.

Tying all of these factors together, Dr. Ceriello discussed how ACE-2 glycosylation, in combination with other factors in SARS-CoV-2 infection, could lead to hyperglycemia, thrombosis, and subsequently multiorgan damage in diabetes patients.

Other research has associated higher HbA1c levels (mean HbA1c, 7.5%) with higher mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, said another speaker, Linong Ji, MD, director for endocrinology and metabolism at Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, and director of Peking University’s Diabetes Center. Proper guidance is key to ensuring early detection of hyperglycemic crisis in people with diabetes, advised Dr. Ji.

Global management of diabetes in SARS-CoV-2 patients is “quite challenging,” given that most patients don’t have their diabetes under control, said host and moderator A. Enrique Caballero, MD, an endocrinologist/investigator in the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and hypertension and division of global health equity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “They are not meeting treatment targets for cholesterol or glucose control. So we’re not managing optimal care. And now on top of this, we have COVID-19.”

For patients with high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), first-line therapy with a triple combination of targeted agents showed encouraging response rates in the phase 2 CLL2-GIVe trial.

Among 41 patients with untreated CLL bearing deleterious TP53 mutations and/or the 17p chromosomal deletion who received the GIVe regimen consisting of obinutuzumab (Gazyva), ibrutinib (Imbruvica), and venetoclax (Venclexta), the complete response rate at final restaging was 58.5%, and 33 patients with a confirmed response were negative for minimal residual disease after a median follow-up of 18.6 months, reported Henriette Huber, MD, of University Hospital Ulm, Germany.

“The GIVe regimen is promising first-line therapy for patients with high-risk CLL,” she said in a presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

The overall safety profile of the combination was acceptable, she said, but added that “some higher-grade infections are of concern.” The rate of grade 3 or greater infections/infestations in the study was 19.5%.

Sound rationale (with caveat)

Another adverse event of concern is the rate of atrial fibrillation in the comparatively young patient population (median age 62), noted Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, of City of Hope in Duarte Calif., who commented on the study for MDedge.

He pointed out that second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors such as acalabrutinib (Calquence) may pose a lower risk of atrial fibrillation than the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib used in the CLL2-GIVe study.

In general, however, the rationale for the combination is sound, Dr. Danilov said.

“Of all the patient populations that we deal with within CLL, this probably would be most appropriate for this type of therapy. Patients with deletion 17p or TP53 mutations still represent an unmet medical need compared to other patients who don’t have those mutations,” he said.

Patients with CLL bearing the mutations have lower clinical response rates to novel therapies and generally do not respond well to chemoimmunotherapy, he said.

“The question becomes whether using these all at the same time, versus sequential strategies – using one drug and then after that, at relapse, another – is better, and obviously this trial doesn’t address that,” he said.
 

Three targets

The investigators enrolled 24 men and 17 women with untreated CLL with del(17p) and/or TP53 mutations and adequate organ function (creatinine clearance rate of more than 50 mL/min). The median age was 62 (range 35-85 years); 78% of patients had Binet stage B or C disease. The median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score was 3 (range 0 to 8).

All patients received treatment with the combination for 6 months. The CD20 inhibitor obinutuzumab was given in a dose of 1,000 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2-6. The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib was given continuously at a dose of 420 mg per day beginning on the first day of the first cycle. Venetoclax, a B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor, was started on day 22 of cycle 1, and was increased to 400 mg per day over 5 weeks until the end of cycle 12.

If patients achieved a complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi) according to International Workshop on CLL criteria at final restaging (performed with imaging at the end of cycle 12 followed by bone marrow biopsy 2 months later), ibrutinib would be stopped beginning at cycle 15. Patients who did not have a CR or CRi would continue on ibrutinib until cycle 36.

Encouraging results

All but 3 of the 41 patients reached final restaging. Analyses of efficacy and safety included all 41 patients.

The CR/CRi rate at final restaging, the primary endpoint, was accomplished in 24 patients (58.8%), and 14 patients (34.1%) had a partial response.

Of the three patients for whom responses could not be assessed, two died (one from ovarian cancer which was retrospectively determined to have been present at enrollment, and one at cycle 9 from cardiac failure), and the third patient withdrew consent at cycle 10.

In all, 33 patients (80.5%) were MRD-negative in peripheral blood, 4 remained MRD positive, and 4 were not assessed. Per protocol, 22 patients with undetectable MRD and a CR or CRi discontinued therapy at week 15. An additional 13 patients also discontinued therapy because of adverse events or other reasons, and 6 remained on therapy beyond cycle 15.

The most frequent adverse events of any grade through the end of cycle 14 were gastrointestinal disorders in 83%, none higher than grade 2; infections and infestations in 70.7%, of which 19.5% were grade 3 or greater in severity; and blood and lymphatic system disorders in 58.5%, most of which (53.7%) were grade 3 or greater.

Cardiac disorders were reported in 19.5% of all patients, including 12.2% with atrial fibrillation; grade 3 or greater atrial fibrillation occurred in 2.4% of patients.

There was one case each of cerebral aspergillosis, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (without PCR testing), urosepsis, staphylococcal sepsis and febrile infection.

Laboratory confirmed tumor lysis syndrome, all grade 3 or greater, was reported in 9.8% of patients. Infusion-related reactions were reported in 29.3% of patients, with a total of 7.3% being grade 3 or greater.

The trial was supported by Janssen-Cilag and Roche. Dr. Huber disclosed travel reimbursement from Novartis. Dr. Danilov disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, and Genentech.

SOURCE: Huber H et al. EHA Congress. Abstract S157.

For patients with high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), first-line therapy with a triple combination of targeted agents showed encouraging response rates in the phase 2 CLL2-GIVe trial.

Among 41 patients with untreated CLL bearing deleterious TP53 mutations and/or the 17p chromosomal deletion who received the GIVe regimen consisting of obinutuzumab (Gazyva), ibrutinib (Imbruvica), and venetoclax (Venclexta), the complete response rate at final restaging was 58.5%, and 33 patients with a confirmed response were negative for minimal residual disease after a median follow-up of 18.6 months, reported Henriette Huber, MD, of University Hospital Ulm, Germany.

“The GIVe regimen is promising first-line therapy for patients with high-risk CLL,” she said in a presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

The overall safety profile of the combination was acceptable, she said, but added that “some higher-grade infections are of concern.” The rate of grade 3 or greater infections/infestations in the study was 19.5%.

Sound rationale (with caveat)

Another adverse event of concern is the rate of atrial fibrillation in the comparatively young patient population (median age 62), noted Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, of City of Hope in Duarte Calif., who commented on the study for MDedge.

He pointed out that second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors such as acalabrutinib (Calquence) may pose a lower risk of atrial fibrillation than the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib used in the CLL2-GIVe study.

In general, however, the rationale for the combination is sound, Dr. Danilov said.

“Of all the patient populations that we deal with within CLL, this probably would be most appropriate for this type of therapy. Patients with deletion 17p or TP53 mutations still represent an unmet medical need compared to other patients who don’t have those mutations,” he said.

Patients with CLL bearing the mutations have lower clinical response rates to novel therapies and generally do not respond well to chemoimmunotherapy, he said.

“The question becomes whether using these all at the same time, versus sequential strategies – using one drug and then after that, at relapse, another – is better, and obviously this trial doesn’t address that,” he said.
 

Three targets

The investigators enrolled 24 men and 17 women with untreated CLL with del(17p) and/or TP53 mutations and adequate organ function (creatinine clearance rate of more than 50 mL/min). The median age was 62 (range 35-85 years); 78% of patients had Binet stage B or C disease. The median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score was 3 (range 0 to 8).

All patients received treatment with the combination for 6 months. The CD20 inhibitor obinutuzumab was given in a dose of 1,000 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2-6. The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib was given continuously at a dose of 420 mg per day beginning on the first day of the first cycle. Venetoclax, a B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor, was started on day 22 of cycle 1, and was increased to 400 mg per day over 5 weeks until the end of cycle 12.

If patients achieved a complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi) according to International Workshop on CLL criteria at final restaging (performed with imaging at the end of cycle 12 followed by bone marrow biopsy 2 months later), ibrutinib would be stopped beginning at cycle 15. Patients who did not have a CR or CRi would continue on ibrutinib until cycle 36.

Encouraging results

All but 3 of the 41 patients reached final restaging. Analyses of efficacy and safety included all 41 patients.

The CR/CRi rate at final restaging, the primary endpoint, was accomplished in 24 patients (58.8%), and 14 patients (34.1%) had a partial response.

Of the three patients for whom responses could not be assessed, two died (one from ovarian cancer which was retrospectively determined to have been present at enrollment, and one at cycle 9 from cardiac failure), and the third patient withdrew consent at cycle 10.

In all, 33 patients (80.5%) were MRD-negative in peripheral blood, 4 remained MRD positive, and 4 were not assessed. Per protocol, 22 patients with undetectable MRD and a CR or CRi discontinued therapy at week 15. An additional 13 patients also discontinued therapy because of adverse events or other reasons, and 6 remained on therapy beyond cycle 15.

The most frequent adverse events of any grade through the end of cycle 14 were gastrointestinal disorders in 83%, none higher than grade 2; infections and infestations in 70.7%, of which 19.5% were grade 3 or greater in severity; and blood and lymphatic system disorders in 58.5%, most of which (53.7%) were grade 3 or greater.

Cardiac disorders were reported in 19.5% of all patients, including 12.2% with atrial fibrillation; grade 3 or greater atrial fibrillation occurred in 2.4% of patients.

There was one case each of cerebral aspergillosis, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (without PCR testing), urosepsis, staphylococcal sepsis and febrile infection.

Laboratory confirmed tumor lysis syndrome, all grade 3 or greater, was reported in 9.8% of patients. Infusion-related reactions were reported in 29.3% of patients, with a total of 7.3% being grade 3 or greater.

The trial was supported by Janssen-Cilag and Roche. Dr. Huber disclosed travel reimbursement from Novartis. Dr. Danilov disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, and Genentech.

SOURCE: Huber H et al. EHA Congress. Abstract S157.

For patients with high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), first-line therapy with a triple combination of targeted agents showed encouraging response rates in the phase 2 CLL2-GIVe trial.

Among 41 patients with untreated CLL bearing deleterious TP53 mutations and/or the 17p chromosomal deletion who received the GIVe regimen consisting of obinutuzumab (Gazyva), ibrutinib (Imbruvica), and venetoclax (Venclexta), the complete response rate at final restaging was 58.5%, and 33 patients with a confirmed response were negative for minimal residual disease after a median follow-up of 18.6 months, reported Henriette Huber, MD, of University Hospital Ulm, Germany.

“The GIVe regimen is promising first-line therapy for patients with high-risk CLL,” she said in a presentation during the virtual annual congress of the European Hematology Association.

The overall safety profile of the combination was acceptable, she said, but added that “some higher-grade infections are of concern.” The rate of grade 3 or greater infections/infestations in the study was 19.5%.

Sound rationale (with caveat)

Another adverse event of concern is the rate of atrial fibrillation in the comparatively young patient population (median age 62), noted Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, of City of Hope in Duarte Calif., who commented on the study for MDedge.

He pointed out that second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors such as acalabrutinib (Calquence) may pose a lower risk of atrial fibrillation than the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib used in the CLL2-GIVe study.

In general, however, the rationale for the combination is sound, Dr. Danilov said.

“Of all the patient populations that we deal with within CLL, this probably would be most appropriate for this type of therapy. Patients with deletion 17p or TP53 mutations still represent an unmet medical need compared to other patients who don’t have those mutations,” he said.

Patients with CLL bearing the mutations have lower clinical response rates to novel therapies and generally do not respond well to chemoimmunotherapy, he said.

“The question becomes whether using these all at the same time, versus sequential strategies – using one drug and then after that, at relapse, another – is better, and obviously this trial doesn’t address that,” he said.
 

Three targets

The investigators enrolled 24 men and 17 women with untreated CLL with del(17p) and/or TP53 mutations and adequate organ function (creatinine clearance rate of more than 50 mL/min). The median age was 62 (range 35-85 years); 78% of patients had Binet stage B or C disease. The median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) score was 3 (range 0 to 8).

All patients received treatment with the combination for 6 months. The CD20 inhibitor obinutuzumab was given in a dose of 1,000 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of cycle 1 and day 1 of cycles 2-6. The BTK inhibitor ibrutinib was given continuously at a dose of 420 mg per day beginning on the first day of the first cycle. Venetoclax, a B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2) inhibitor, was started on day 22 of cycle 1, and was increased to 400 mg per day over 5 weeks until the end of cycle 12.

If patients achieved a complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete recovery of blood counts (CRi) according to International Workshop on CLL criteria at final restaging (performed with imaging at the end of cycle 12 followed by bone marrow biopsy 2 months later), ibrutinib would be stopped beginning at cycle 15. Patients who did not have a CR or CRi would continue on ibrutinib until cycle 36.

Encouraging results

All but 3 of the 41 patients reached final restaging. Analyses of efficacy and safety included all 41 patients.

The CR/CRi rate at final restaging, the primary endpoint, was accomplished in 24 patients (58.8%), and 14 patients (34.1%) had a partial response.

Of the three patients for whom responses could not be assessed, two died (one from ovarian cancer which was retrospectively determined to have been present at enrollment, and one at cycle 9 from cardiac failure), and the third patient withdrew consent at cycle 10.

In all, 33 patients (80.5%) were MRD-negative in peripheral blood, 4 remained MRD positive, and 4 were not assessed. Per protocol, 22 patients with undetectable MRD and a CR or CRi discontinued therapy at week 15. An additional 13 patients also discontinued therapy because of adverse events or other reasons, and 6 remained on therapy beyond cycle 15.

The most frequent adverse events of any grade through the end of cycle 14 were gastrointestinal disorders in 83%, none higher than grade 2; infections and infestations in 70.7%, of which 19.5% were grade 3 or greater in severity; and blood and lymphatic system disorders in 58.5%, most of which (53.7%) were grade 3 or greater.

Cardiac disorders were reported in 19.5% of all patients, including 12.2% with atrial fibrillation; grade 3 or greater atrial fibrillation occurred in 2.4% of patients.

There was one case each of cerebral aspergillosis, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (without PCR testing), urosepsis, staphylococcal sepsis and febrile infection.

Laboratory confirmed tumor lysis syndrome, all grade 3 or greater, was reported in 9.8% of patients. Infusion-related reactions were reported in 29.3% of patients, with a total of 7.3% being grade 3 or greater.

The trial was supported by Janssen-Cilag and Roche. Dr. Huber disclosed travel reimbursement from Novartis. Dr. Danilov disclosed consulting for AbbVie, Janssen, and Genentech.

SOURCE: Huber H et al. EHA Congress. Abstract S157.

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

[email protected]

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

[email protected]

Secondary respiratory infections appear to be highly prevalent among patients with severe COVID-19, but at this point, most pulmonologists aren’t sure what to make of this understudied phenomenon.

“We really do not understand the implications of secondary infections on outcomes in COVID-19 patients,” David L. Bowton, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. “In most early reports the incidence of secondary infections was much higher in patients dying from COVID-19, compared to survivors, but it isn’t clear whether this indicates that the secondary infection itself led to excess mortality or was more a marker of the severity of the COVID-19 infection.

“Further, details of the diagnostic criteria used, the microbiology, and the appropriateness of treatment of these secondary infections has not generally been included in these reports,” added Dr. Bowton, a pulmonologist and professor emeritus of critical care anesthesiology at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.

One such early retrospective cohort study included 191 COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Of the 54 who died in hospital, half had secondary bacterial lung infections (Lancet. 2020 Mar 28;395[10229]:1054-62). That comes as no surprise to U.S. pulmonologists, who learned back in their training that many deaths during the so-called Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 were actually caused by secondary pneumonia involving Staphylococcus aureus, commented Daniel L. Ouellette, MD, FCCP, associate director of medical critical care at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit.

“Critically ill patients are highly susceptible to secondary infections regardless of the cause of the patient’s critical illness,” he noted in an interview. “Recent reports of secondary infections in patients critically ill from COVID-19 are interesting but should be considered in this context. To confirm that COVID-19 patients have a different, or increased, risk of infection at specific sites or from specific agents will require careful study.”

That will be no easy matter given the challenges of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage samples in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, according to Eric J. Gartman, MD, FCCP, a pulmonologist at Brown University, Providence, R.I., and director of the pulmonary function laboratory at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

“Unfortunately, many of the invasive modalities that are typically employed to help diagnose secondary infections in critically ill patients are being severely limited or even prohibited in COVID-19 patients due to infection control measures,” he said. As a result, Dr. Gartman noted, intensivists are often resorting to empiric broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe COVID-19 and are without ready access to the bacterial cultures which might otherwise permit later treatment de-escalation or retargeting.

Among the myriad areas of uncertainty regarding COVID-19 is the proportion of bacterial coinfections that are hospital acquired. Given the lengthy duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 – a mean of 9.1 days in the United Kingdom – the chances of hospital-acquired infection are likely substantial. Moreover, a recent single-center U.K. study involving microbiologic testing in 195 consecutive patients newly hospitalized for COVID-19 reported that community-acquired bacterial infection was uncommon: Just 4% of patients had pneumococcal coinfection at hospital admission, and S. aureus wasn’t detected in anyone (Lancet. 2020;1:362. doi:10.1016/S2666-5247[20]30036-7). French investigators have reported detecting putative invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in nearly one-third of a small series of 27 consecutive mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients (Lancet Resp Med. 2020; 8[6]:e48-9). Dr. Gartman said the diagnostic testing methods utilized in this and similar reports haven’t been prospectively validated in COVID-19. The testing methods may not indicate invasive Aspergillus infection in this population with a high degree of certainty, since they have previously been performed mainly in patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Although there is nothing definitive regarding this research, as a practicing critical care doctor one should respect these findings and consider this secondary diagnosis if the supporting clinical data is positive, especially given that the mortality risk in this population is high,” he advised.

Dr. Bowton said that he and his fellow intensivists at Wake Forest Baptist Health don’t routinely screen COVID-19 patients for secondary bacterial or fungal infections. And in talking with colleagues around the country, it’s his impression that most have similarly elected not to do so.

“However, our clinical index of suspicion for secondary infections is heightened and, if triggered, will initiate a search for and treatment of these secondary infections,” Dr. Bowton said.
 

[email protected]

In its first media briefing on coronavirus in more than 3 months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and large gatherings pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Robert Redfield, MD, Director, CDC, and Jay C. Butler, MD, Deputy Director of Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 Response Incident Manager, CDC, discussed two new sets of CDC guidance on deciding to go out and attending group gatherings.

“We recognize that we’re all getting tired of staying at home; people long for the life that they had back in December, and as we head into the summer months, we know that Americans will be looking forward to reconnecting with family and friends and being able to attend events, and we want that to occur as safely as possible,” Butler said.

“Our recommendations evolved based on new information that becomes available, but it continues to be extremely important that we embrace the recommendations of social distancing, handwashing, and wearing a face covering when we’re in public as some of the key defenses that we have against this virus,” Redfield explained.

“The pandemic is not over and it’s important to recognize that. While COVID-19 is still making headlines everywhere, we know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone everywhere in the same way,” Butler said.

He noted that it is important to prepare for next fall and winter, when we can expect influenza season to complicate matters. “If anything, we must be overly-prepared for what we might face later this year,” he continued, adding that it is important to get vaccinated against influenza. “[F]lu and COVID-19 could be circulating together as we move into the fall and winter months,” he concluded.

Americans Mostly Following Guidelines

The agency also presented data from an article published online June 12 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “underscores the fact that American people have taken mitigation efforts seriously…and it demonstrates our collective spirit in responding to the pandemic,” Butler said.

In it, the researchers describe representative panel surveys conducted among 4042 adults aged 18 years or older in New York City and Los Angeles — the two most populous cities in the United States — and “broadly across the United States” during May 5 to May 12, 2020.

Most respondents supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; Los Angeles, 81.5%) and always or often wore cloth face coverings in public (United States, 74.1%; New York City, 89.6%; Los Angeles, 89.8%). Respondents also agreed that nonessential workers should remain at home (United States, 67.3%; New York City, 76.6%; Los Angeles, 69.1%), report Mark É. Czeisler, from Monash University and Austin Health, both in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.

There was wide support with public health guidelines: more than 87% of individuals in each area agreed that individuals should keep six feet of distance between themselves and others, and more than 82% in each area said that people should limit gatherings to fewer than 10 individuals.

At the time the survey was conducted, most were against indoor dining at restaurants (United States, 66.6%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 71.8%).

Adherence “Widespread,” Survey Finds

Most respondents said they were adhering to COVID-19 mitigation guidance, including self-isolating (United States, 77.3%; New York City, 84.6%; Los Angeles, 83.0%) and “always or often” kept at least six feet between themselves and others (New York City, 85.7%; Los Angeles, 82.6%).

More than 85% of respondents in each of the three cohorts said they always or often avoided groups of 10 or more individuals.

About 90% of respondents said they had been in a public area during the last week, with 74.1% of those saying they always or often covered their face in public; respondents in New York City (89.6%) and Los Angeles (89.8%) had higher percentages of this behavior compared with respondents from the United States overall.

Most respondents felt that restrictions in their state were balanced or too lax (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; Los Angeles, 79.7%) and said they would feel unsafe if restrictions were eased nationwide at that time (United States, 74.3%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 73.4%). However, some individuals who said they would feel unsafe still wanted community mitigation strategies eased and were willing to accept risks resulting from lifting restrictions (United States, 17.1%; New York City, 12.6%; Los Angeles, 12.7%).

“Reported prevalence of self-isolation and feeling safe if community mitigation strategies were lifted differed significantly by age, employment status, and essential worker status among adults in the U.S. survey cohort,” the authors write.

Reports of self-isolation were highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (92.3%) and lowest among those aged 45 to 54 years (71.5%). Yet, young adults aged 18 to 24 years (43.1%) were more than twice as likely to say they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with adults aged 65 years or older (19.2%).

Almost half (47.2%) of employed respondents in the US cohort were essential workers; essential workers were “significantly less likely” to report self-isolating when compared with nonessential workers (63.1% vs 80.6%). Some 37.7% of essential workers said they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with 23.7% of nonessential workers.

“Respondents who were male, employed, or essential workers were significantly more likely to report having been in public areas in the past week. Among respondents who had been in public areas during the preceding week, significantly higher percentages of women, adults aged ≥ 65 years, retired persons, and those living in urban areas reported wearing cloth face coverings,” the authors explain.

The findings are subject to several limitations, including self-reporting and the fact that some respondents may have known someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it, the authors note. Respondents were not representative of the US population and the findings may not be generalizable.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its first media briefing on coronavirus in more than 3 months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and large gatherings pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Robert Redfield, MD, Director, CDC, and Jay C. Butler, MD, Deputy Director of Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 Response Incident Manager, CDC, discussed two new sets of CDC guidance on deciding to go out and attending group gatherings.

“We recognize that we’re all getting tired of staying at home; people long for the life that they had back in December, and as we head into the summer months, we know that Americans will be looking forward to reconnecting with family and friends and being able to attend events, and we want that to occur as safely as possible,” Butler said.

“Our recommendations evolved based on new information that becomes available, but it continues to be extremely important that we embrace the recommendations of social distancing, handwashing, and wearing a face covering when we’re in public as some of the key defenses that we have against this virus,” Redfield explained.

“The pandemic is not over and it’s important to recognize that. While COVID-19 is still making headlines everywhere, we know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone everywhere in the same way,” Butler said.

He noted that it is important to prepare for next fall and winter, when we can expect influenza season to complicate matters. “If anything, we must be overly-prepared for what we might face later this year,” he continued, adding that it is important to get vaccinated against influenza. “[F]lu and COVID-19 could be circulating together as we move into the fall and winter months,” he concluded.

Americans Mostly Following Guidelines

The agency also presented data from an article published online June 12 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “underscores the fact that American people have taken mitigation efforts seriously…and it demonstrates our collective spirit in responding to the pandemic,” Butler said.

In it, the researchers describe representative panel surveys conducted among 4042 adults aged 18 years or older in New York City and Los Angeles — the two most populous cities in the United States — and “broadly across the United States” during May 5 to May 12, 2020.

Most respondents supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; Los Angeles, 81.5%) and always or often wore cloth face coverings in public (United States, 74.1%; New York City, 89.6%; Los Angeles, 89.8%). Respondents also agreed that nonessential workers should remain at home (United States, 67.3%; New York City, 76.6%; Los Angeles, 69.1%), report Mark É. Czeisler, from Monash University and Austin Health, both in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.

There was wide support with public health guidelines: more than 87% of individuals in each area agreed that individuals should keep six feet of distance between themselves and others, and more than 82% in each area said that people should limit gatherings to fewer than 10 individuals.

At the time the survey was conducted, most were against indoor dining at restaurants (United States, 66.6%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 71.8%).

Adherence “Widespread,” Survey Finds

Most respondents said they were adhering to COVID-19 mitigation guidance, including self-isolating (United States, 77.3%; New York City, 84.6%; Los Angeles, 83.0%) and “always or often” kept at least six feet between themselves and others (New York City, 85.7%; Los Angeles, 82.6%).

More than 85% of respondents in each of the three cohorts said they always or often avoided groups of 10 or more individuals.

About 90% of respondents said they had been in a public area during the last week, with 74.1% of those saying they always or often covered their face in public; respondents in New York City (89.6%) and Los Angeles (89.8%) had higher percentages of this behavior compared with respondents from the United States overall.

Most respondents felt that restrictions in their state were balanced or too lax (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; Los Angeles, 79.7%) and said they would feel unsafe if restrictions were eased nationwide at that time (United States, 74.3%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 73.4%). However, some individuals who said they would feel unsafe still wanted community mitigation strategies eased and were willing to accept risks resulting from lifting restrictions (United States, 17.1%; New York City, 12.6%; Los Angeles, 12.7%).

“Reported prevalence of self-isolation and feeling safe if community mitigation strategies were lifted differed significantly by age, employment status, and essential worker status among adults in the U.S. survey cohort,” the authors write.

Reports of self-isolation were highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (92.3%) and lowest among those aged 45 to 54 years (71.5%). Yet, young adults aged 18 to 24 years (43.1%) were more than twice as likely to say they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with adults aged 65 years or older (19.2%).

Almost half (47.2%) of employed respondents in the US cohort were essential workers; essential workers were “significantly less likely” to report self-isolating when compared with nonessential workers (63.1% vs 80.6%). Some 37.7% of essential workers said they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with 23.7% of nonessential workers.

“Respondents who were male, employed, or essential workers were significantly more likely to report having been in public areas in the past week. Among respondents who had been in public areas during the preceding week, significantly higher percentages of women, adults aged ≥ 65 years, retired persons, and those living in urban areas reported wearing cloth face coverings,” the authors explain.

The findings are subject to several limitations, including self-reporting and the fact that some respondents may have known someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it, the authors note. Respondents were not representative of the US population and the findings may not be generalizable.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its first media briefing on coronavirus in more than 3 months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that the COVID-19 pandemic is not over, and large gatherings pose a high risk for COVID-19 transmission.

Robert Redfield, MD, Director, CDC, and Jay C. Butler, MD, Deputy Director of Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 Response Incident Manager, CDC, discussed two new sets of CDC guidance on deciding to go out and attending group gatherings.

“We recognize that we’re all getting tired of staying at home; people long for the life that they had back in December, and as we head into the summer months, we know that Americans will be looking forward to reconnecting with family and friends and being able to attend events, and we want that to occur as safely as possible,” Butler said.

“Our recommendations evolved based on new information that becomes available, but it continues to be extremely important that we embrace the recommendations of social distancing, handwashing, and wearing a face covering when we’re in public as some of the key defenses that we have against this virus,” Redfield explained.

“The pandemic is not over and it’s important to recognize that. While COVID-19 is still making headlines everywhere, we know the pandemic hasn’t affected everyone everywhere in the same way,” Butler said.

He noted that it is important to prepare for next fall and winter, when we can expect influenza season to complicate matters. “If anything, we must be overly-prepared for what we might face later this year,” he continued, adding that it is important to get vaccinated against influenza. “[F]lu and COVID-19 could be circulating together as we move into the fall and winter months,” he concluded.

Americans Mostly Following Guidelines

The agency also presented data from an article published online June 12 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that “underscores the fact that American people have taken mitigation efforts seriously…and it demonstrates our collective spirit in responding to the pandemic,” Butler said.

In it, the researchers describe representative panel surveys conducted among 4042 adults aged 18 years or older in New York City and Los Angeles — the two most populous cities in the United States — and “broadly across the United States” during May 5 to May 12, 2020.

Most respondents supported stay-at-home orders and nonessential business closures (United States, 79.5%; New York City, 86.7%; Los Angeles, 81.5%) and always or often wore cloth face coverings in public (United States, 74.1%; New York City, 89.6%; Los Angeles, 89.8%). Respondents also agreed that nonessential workers should remain at home (United States, 67.3%; New York City, 76.6%; Los Angeles, 69.1%), report Mark É. Czeisler, from Monash University and Austin Health, both in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues.

There was wide support with public health guidelines: more than 87% of individuals in each area agreed that individuals should keep six feet of distance between themselves and others, and more than 82% in each area said that people should limit gatherings to fewer than 10 individuals.

At the time the survey was conducted, most were against indoor dining at restaurants (United States, 66.6%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 71.8%).

Adherence “Widespread,” Survey Finds

Most respondents said they were adhering to COVID-19 mitigation guidance, including self-isolating (United States, 77.3%; New York City, 84.6%; Los Angeles, 83.0%) and “always or often” kept at least six feet between themselves and others (New York City, 85.7%; Los Angeles, 82.6%).

More than 85% of respondents in each of the three cohorts said they always or often avoided groups of 10 or more individuals.

About 90% of respondents said they had been in a public area during the last week, with 74.1% of those saying they always or often covered their face in public; respondents in New York City (89.6%) and Los Angeles (89.8%) had higher percentages of this behavior compared with respondents from the United States overall.

Most respondents felt that restrictions in their state were balanced or too lax (United States, 84.3%; New York City, 89.7%; Los Angeles, 79.7%) and said they would feel unsafe if restrictions were eased nationwide at that time (United States, 74.3%; New York City, 81.5%; Los Angeles, 73.4%). However, some individuals who said they would feel unsafe still wanted community mitigation strategies eased and were willing to accept risks resulting from lifting restrictions (United States, 17.1%; New York City, 12.6%; Los Angeles, 12.7%).

“Reported prevalence of self-isolation and feeling safe if community mitigation strategies were lifted differed significantly by age, employment status, and essential worker status among adults in the U.S. survey cohort,” the authors write.

Reports of self-isolation were highest among persons aged 18 to 24 years (92.3%) and lowest among those aged 45 to 54 years (71.5%). Yet, young adults aged 18 to 24 years (43.1%) were more than twice as likely to say they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with adults aged 65 years or older (19.2%).

Almost half (47.2%) of employed respondents in the US cohort were essential workers; essential workers were “significantly less likely” to report self-isolating when compared with nonessential workers (63.1% vs 80.6%). Some 37.7% of essential workers said they would feel safe if community mitigation strategies were eased, compared with 23.7% of nonessential workers.

“Respondents who were male, employed, or essential workers were significantly more likely to report having been in public areas in the past week. Among respondents who had been in public areas during the preceding week, significantly higher percentages of women, adults aged ≥ 65 years, retired persons, and those living in urban areas reported wearing cloth face coverings,” the authors explain.

The findings are subject to several limitations, including self-reporting and the fact that some respondents may have known someone who tested positive for COVID-19 or died from it, the authors note. Respondents were not representative of the US population and the findings may not be generalizable.


This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Racism, COVID-19 lead to sky-high stress levels

Primary care clinicians, already experiencing all-time high stress levels related to COVID-19, are now struggling to cope with the fallout from racism and the death of George Floyd, according to a survey conducted June 5-8.

When asked how the situation has affected their practices, 12% of the survey’s 586 respondents “drew clear connections between the current racial unrest and the health of their patients,” the Larry A. Green Center said in a recent statement. One-third of the clinicians also said that recent racism-related events have had a negative effect on their own well-being.

In a related survey of 1,111 patients conducted June 8 about 65% of patients said that racism affected emotional, psychological, and behavioral health.

“The fact that so many patients and clinicians agree that racism is a driver of health points to the incredible role primary care plays in creating safe spaces to process deep societal and personal issues,” said Christine Bechtel, cofounder of 3rd Conversation, a community of patients and providers. Read more.

Medical teams take to the streets

They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go. Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. “I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Ms. Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America. Read more.

At-home management of type 1 diabetes, COVID-19

Although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.   

These new findings are still preliminary and were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

The published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. There were two deaths in the preliminary report, Dr. Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home. At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit. Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to the hospital. “Even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Dr. Ebekozien said. Read more.

‘Hospital at home’ for cancer patients

Visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations are often frequent occurrences for cancer patients, but what if the “hospital” could be brought into the home instead?

A new American cohort study provides evidence that this can be a workable option for cancer patients. The authors report improved patient outcomes, with 56% lower odds of unplanned hospitalizations, 45% lower odds of ED visits, and 50% lower cumulative charges, as compared with patients who received usual care.

“The oncology hospital-at-home model of care that extends acute-level care to the patient at home offers promise in addressing a long-term gap in cancer care service delivery,” said lead author Kathi Mooney, PhD, RN, distinguished professor of nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “In light of the current global pandemic, we are compelled to consider new ways to provide cancer care, and the oncology hospital-at-home model is on point to address critical elements of an improved cancer care delivery system.”

Dr. Mooney presented the findings during the virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual meeting (abstract 7000). Read more.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Racism, COVID-19 lead to sky-high stress levels

Primary care clinicians, already experiencing all-time high stress levels related to COVID-19, are now struggling to cope with the fallout from racism and the death of George Floyd, according to a survey conducted June 5-8.

When asked how the situation has affected their practices, 12% of the survey’s 586 respondents “drew clear connections between the current racial unrest and the health of their patients,” the Larry A. Green Center said in a recent statement. One-third of the clinicians also said that recent racism-related events have had a negative effect on their own well-being.

In a related survey of 1,111 patients conducted June 8 about 65% of patients said that racism affected emotional, psychological, and behavioral health.

“The fact that so many patients and clinicians agree that racism is a driver of health points to the incredible role primary care plays in creating safe spaces to process deep societal and personal issues,” said Christine Bechtel, cofounder of 3rd Conversation, a community of patients and providers. Read more.

Medical teams take to the streets

They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go. Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. “I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Ms. Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America. Read more.

At-home management of type 1 diabetes, COVID-19

Although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.   

These new findings are still preliminary and were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

The published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. There were two deaths in the preliminary report, Dr. Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home. At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit. Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to the hospital. “Even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Dr. Ebekozien said. Read more.

‘Hospital at home’ for cancer patients

Visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations are often frequent occurrences for cancer patients, but what if the “hospital” could be brought into the home instead?

A new American cohort study provides evidence that this can be a workable option for cancer patients. The authors report improved patient outcomes, with 56% lower odds of unplanned hospitalizations, 45% lower odds of ED visits, and 50% lower cumulative charges, as compared with patients who received usual care.

“The oncology hospital-at-home model of care that extends acute-level care to the patient at home offers promise in addressing a long-term gap in cancer care service delivery,” said lead author Kathi Mooney, PhD, RN, distinguished professor of nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “In light of the current global pandemic, we are compelled to consider new ways to provide cancer care, and the oncology hospital-at-home model is on point to address critical elements of an improved cancer care delivery system.”

Dr. Mooney presented the findings during the virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual meeting (abstract 7000). Read more.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Here are the stories our MDedge editors across specialties think you need to know about today:

Racism, COVID-19 lead to sky-high stress levels

Primary care clinicians, already experiencing all-time high stress levels related to COVID-19, are now struggling to cope with the fallout from racism and the death of George Floyd, according to a survey conducted June 5-8.

When asked how the situation has affected their practices, 12% of the survey’s 586 respondents “drew clear connections between the current racial unrest and the health of their patients,” the Larry A. Green Center said in a recent statement. One-third of the clinicians also said that recent racism-related events have had a negative effect on their own well-being.

In a related survey of 1,111 patients conducted June 8 about 65% of patients said that racism affected emotional, psychological, and behavioral health.

“The fact that so many patients and clinicians agree that racism is a driver of health points to the incredible role primary care plays in creating safe spaces to process deep societal and personal issues,” said Christine Bechtel, cofounder of 3rd Conversation, a community of patients and providers. Read more.

Medical teams take to the streets

They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go. Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. “I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Ms. Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America. Read more.

At-home management of type 1 diabetes, COVID-19

Although hyperglycemia and diabetic ketoacidosis are common in people with type 1 diabetes who develop COVID-19, many are still able to manage the illness at home and overall mortality is relatively low.   

These new findings are still preliminary and were published online June 5 in Diabetes Care by Osagie A. Ebekozien, MD, vice president, quality improvement and population health at the T1D Exchange, and colleagues.

The published study includes data as of May 5 on 64 individuals from a total of 64 US sites. Since the paper was submitted, there are now 220 patients from 68 sites. There were two deaths in the preliminary report, Dr. Ebekozien said. There have been a few more deaths in the larger dataset, but the mortality rate remains relatively low.

Overall, 34.9% of patients were able to manage COVID-19 entirely at home. At the other extreme, 22.2% of patients overall were admitted to the intensive care unit. Including the small proportion of patients sent home after being seen in emergency or urgent care, overall roughly half were not admitted to the hospital. “Even in this preliminary study, half were managed at home via telemedicine with an endocrinologist and infectious disease specialist ... I think it continues to be a case-by-case clinical decision between the patient and their provider,” Dr. Ebekozien said. Read more.

‘Hospital at home’ for cancer patients

Visits to the emergency department (ED) and hospitalizations are often frequent occurrences for cancer patients, but what if the “hospital” could be brought into the home instead?

A new American cohort study provides evidence that this can be a workable option for cancer patients. The authors report improved patient outcomes, with 56% lower odds of unplanned hospitalizations, 45% lower odds of ED visits, and 50% lower cumulative charges, as compared with patients who received usual care.

“The oncology hospital-at-home model of care that extends acute-level care to the patient at home offers promise in addressing a long-term gap in cancer care service delivery,” said lead author Kathi Mooney, PhD, RN, distinguished professor of nursing at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “In light of the current global pandemic, we are compelled to consider new ways to provide cancer care, and the oncology hospital-at-home model is on point to address critical elements of an improved cancer care delivery system.”

Dr. Mooney presented the findings during the virtual scientific program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual meeting (abstract 7000). Read more.
 

For more on COVID-19, visit our Resource Center. All of our latest news is available on MDedge.com.

Amid clouds of choking tear gas, booming flash-bang grenades and other “riot control agents,” volunteer medics plunged into street protests over the past weeks to help the injured – sometimes rushing to the front lines as soon as their hospital shifts ended.

Known as “street medics,” these unorthodox teams of nursing students, veterinarians, doctors, trauma surgeons, security guards, ski patrollers, nurses, wilderness EMTs, and off-the-clock ambulance workers poured water – not milk – into the eyes of tear-gassed protesters. They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go.

Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

So donning cloth masks to protect against the virus – plus helmets, makeshift shields and other gear to guard against rubber bullets, projectiles and tear gas – the volunteer medics organized themselves into a web of first responders to care for people on the streets. They showed up early, set up first-aid stations, established transportation networks and covered their arms, helmets and backpacks with crosses made of red duct tape, to signify that they were medics. Some stayed late into the night past curfews until every protester had left.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. She didn’t see it as a choice.

“I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America.

After going out as a medic on her own, she soon met other volunteers. Together they used text-message chains to organize their efforts. One night, she responded to a man who had been shot with a rubber bullet in the chest; she said his torso had turned blue and purple from the impact. She also provided aid after a shooting near the protest left someone in critical condition.

“It’s hard, but bills need to be paid and justice needs to be served,” she said.

The street medic movement traces its roots, in part, to the 1960s protests, as well as the American Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party. Denver Action Medic Network offers a 20-hour training course that prepares them to treat patients in conflicts with police and large crowds; a four-hour session is offered to medical professionals as “bridge” training.

Since the coronavirus pandemic began, the Denver Action Medic Network has added new training guidelines: Don’t go to protests if sick or in contact with those who are infected; wear a mask; give people lots of space and use hand sanitizer. Jordan Garcia, a 39-year-old medic for over 20 years who works with the network of veteran street medics, said they also warn medics about the increased risk of transmission because of protesters coughing from tear gas, and urge them to get tested for the virus after the protests.

The number of volunteer medics swelled after George Floyd’s May 25 killing in Minneapolis. In Denver alone, at least 40 people reached out to the Denver Action Medic Network for training.

On June 3, Dr. Rupa Marya, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California,San Francisco, and the co-founder of the Do No Harm Coalition, which runs street medic training in the Bay Area, hosted a national webinar attended by over 3,000 medical professionals to provide the bridge training to be a street medic. In her online bio, Marya describes the coalition as “an organization of over 450 health workers committed to structural change” in addressing health problems.

“When we see suffering, that’s where we go,” Marya said. “And right now that suffering is happening on the streets.”

In the recent Denver protests, street medics responded to major head, face and eye injuries among protesters from what are sometimes described as “kinetic impact projectiles” or “less-than-lethal” bullets shot at protesters, along with tear-gas and flash-bang stun grenade canisters that either hit them or exploded in their faces.

Garcia, who by day works for an immigrant rights nonprofit, said that these weapons are not designed to be shot directly at people.

“We’re seeing police use these less-lethal weapons in lethal ways, and that is pretty upsetting,” Garcia said about the recent protests.

Denver police Chief Paul Pazen promised to make changes, including banning chokeholds and requiring SWAT teams to turn on their body cameras. Last week, a federal judge also issued a temporary injunction to stop Denver police from using tear gas and other less-than-lethal weapons in response to a class action lawsuit, in which a medic stated he was shot multiple times by police with pepper balls while treating patients. (Last week in North Carolina police were recorded destroying medic stations.)

Denver street medic Kevin Connell, a 30-year-old emergency room nurse, said he was hit with pepper balls in the back of his medic vest – which was clearly marked by red crosses – while treating a patient. He showed up to the Denver protests every night he did not have to work, he said, wearing a Kevlar medic vest, protective goggles and a homemade gas mask fashioned from a water bottle. As a member of the Denver Action Medic Network, Connell also served at the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota in a dispute over the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“I mean, as bad as it sounds, it was only tear gas, pepper balls and rubber bullets that were being fired on us,” Connell said of his recent experience in Denver. “When I was at Standing Rock, they were using high-powered water hoses even when it was, like, freezing cold. … So I think the police here had a little bit more restraint.”

Still, first-time street medic Aj Mossman, a 31-year-old Denver emergency medical technician studying for nursing school, was shocked to be tear-gassed and struck in the back of the leg with a flash grenade while treating a protester on May 30. Mossman still has a large leg bruise.

The following night, Mossman, who uses the pronoun they, brought more protective gear, but said they are still having difficulty processing what felt like a war zone.

“I thought I understood what my black friends went through. I thought I understood what the black community went through,” said Mossman, who is white. “But I had absolutely no idea how violent the police were and how little they cared about who they hurt.”

For Butler, serving as a medic with others from various walks of life was inspiring. “They’re also out there to protect black and brown bodies. And that’s amazing,” she said. “That’s just a beautiful sight.”

This article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Amid clouds of choking tear gas, booming flash-bang grenades and other “riot control agents,” volunteer medics plunged into street protests over the past weeks to help the injured – sometimes rushing to the front lines as soon as their hospital shifts ended.

Known as “street medics,” these unorthodox teams of nursing students, veterinarians, doctors, trauma surgeons, security guards, ski patrollers, nurses, wilderness EMTs, and off-the-clock ambulance workers poured water – not milk – into the eyes of tear-gassed protesters. They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go.

Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

So donning cloth masks to protect against the virus – plus helmets, makeshift shields and other gear to guard against rubber bullets, projectiles and tear gas – the volunteer medics organized themselves into a web of first responders to care for people on the streets. They showed up early, set up first-aid stations, established transportation networks and covered their arms, helmets and backpacks with crosses made of red duct tape, to signify that they were medics. Some stayed late into the night past curfews until every protester had left.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. She didn’t see it as a choice.

“I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America.

After going out as a medic on her own, she soon met other volunteers. Together they used text-message chains to organize their efforts. One night, she responded to a man who had been shot with a rubber bullet in the chest; she said his torso had turned blue and purple from the impact. She also provided aid after a shooting near the protest left someone in critical condition.

“It’s hard, but bills need to be paid and justice needs to be served,” she said.

The street medic movement traces its roots, in part, to the 1960s protests, as well as the American Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party. Denver Action Medic Network offers a 20-hour training course that prepares them to treat patients in conflicts with police and large crowds; a four-hour session is offered to medical professionals as “bridge” training.

Since the coronavirus pandemic began, the Denver Action Medic Network has added new training guidelines: Don’t go to protests if sick or in contact with those who are infected; wear a mask; give people lots of space and use hand sanitizer. Jordan Garcia, a 39-year-old medic for over 20 years who works with the network of veteran street medics, said they also warn medics about the increased risk of transmission because of protesters coughing from tear gas, and urge them to get tested for the virus after the protests.

The number of volunteer medics swelled after George Floyd’s May 25 killing in Minneapolis. In Denver alone, at least 40 people reached out to the Denver Action Medic Network for training.

On June 3, Dr. Rupa Marya, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California,San Francisco, and the co-founder of the Do No Harm Coalition, which runs street medic training in the Bay Area, hosted a national webinar attended by over 3,000 medical professionals to provide the bridge training to be a street medic. In her online bio, Marya describes the coalition as “an organization of over 450 health workers committed to structural change” in addressing health problems.

“When we see suffering, that’s where we go,” Marya said. “And right now that suffering is happening on the streets.”

In the recent Denver protests, street medics responded to major head, face and eye injuries among protesters from what are sometimes described as “kinetic impact projectiles” or “less-than-lethal” bullets shot at protesters, along with tear-gas and flash-bang stun grenade canisters that either hit them or exploded in their faces.

Garcia, who by day works for an immigrant rights nonprofit, said that these weapons are not designed to be shot directly at people.

“We’re seeing police use these less-lethal weapons in lethal ways, and that is pretty upsetting,” Garcia said about the recent protests.

Denver police Chief Paul Pazen promised to make changes, including banning chokeholds and requiring SWAT teams to turn on their body cameras. Last week, a federal judge also issued a temporary injunction to stop Denver police from using tear gas and other less-than-lethal weapons in response to a class action lawsuit, in which a medic stated he was shot multiple times by police with pepper balls while treating patients. (Last week in North Carolina police were recorded destroying medic stations.)

Denver street medic Kevin Connell, a 30-year-old emergency room nurse, said he was hit with pepper balls in the back of his medic vest – which was clearly marked by red crosses – while treating a patient. He showed up to the Denver protests every night he did not have to work, he said, wearing a Kevlar medic vest, protective goggles and a homemade gas mask fashioned from a water bottle. As a member of the Denver Action Medic Network, Connell also served at the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota in a dispute over the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“I mean, as bad as it sounds, it was only tear gas, pepper balls and rubber bullets that were being fired on us,” Connell said of his recent experience in Denver. “When I was at Standing Rock, they were using high-powered water hoses even when it was, like, freezing cold. … So I think the police here had a little bit more restraint.”

Still, first-time street medic Aj Mossman, a 31-year-old Denver emergency medical technician studying for nursing school, was shocked to be tear-gassed and struck in the back of the leg with a flash grenade while treating a protester on May 30. Mossman still has a large leg bruise.

The following night, Mossman, who uses the pronoun they, brought more protective gear, but said they are still having difficulty processing what felt like a war zone.

“I thought I understood what my black friends went through. I thought I understood what the black community went through,” said Mossman, who is white. “But I had absolutely no idea how violent the police were and how little they cared about who they hurt.”

For Butler, serving as a medic with others from various walks of life was inspiring. “They’re also out there to protect black and brown bodies. And that’s amazing,” she said. “That’s just a beautiful sight.”

This article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Amid clouds of choking tear gas, booming flash-bang grenades and other “riot control agents,” volunteer medics plunged into street protests over the past weeks to help the injured – sometimes rushing to the front lines as soon as their hospital shifts ended.

Known as “street medics,” these unorthodox teams of nursing students, veterinarians, doctors, trauma surgeons, security guards, ski patrollers, nurses, wilderness EMTs, and off-the-clock ambulance workers poured water – not milk – into the eyes of tear-gassed protesters. They stanched bleeding wounds and plucked disoriented teenagers from clouds of gas, entering dangerous corners where on-duty emergency health responders may fear to go.

Many are medical professionals who see parallels between the front lines of COVID-19, where they confront stark racial imbalances among those stricken by the coronavirus, and what they see as racialized police brutality.

So donning cloth masks to protect against the virus – plus helmets, makeshift shields and other gear to guard against rubber bullets, projectiles and tear gas – the volunteer medics organized themselves into a web of first responders to care for people on the streets. They showed up early, set up first-aid stations, established transportation networks and covered their arms, helmets and backpacks with crosses made of red duct tape, to signify that they were medics. Some stayed late into the night past curfews until every protester had left.

Iris Butler, a 21-year-old certified nursing assistant who works in a nursing home, decided to offer her skills after seeing a man injured by a rubber bullet on her first night at the Denver protests. She showed up as a medic every night thereafter. She didn’t see it as a choice.

“I am working full time and basically being at the protest after getting straight off of work,” said Butler, who is black. That’s tiring, she added, but so is being a black woman in America.

After going out as a medic on her own, she soon met other volunteers. Together they used text-message chains to organize their efforts. One night, she responded to a man who had been shot with a rubber bullet in the chest; she said his torso had turned blue and purple from the impact. She also provided aid after a shooting near the protest left someone in critical condition.

“It’s hard, but bills need to be paid and justice needs to be served,” she said.

The street medic movement traces its roots, in part, to the 1960s protests, as well as the American Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party. Denver Action Medic Network offers a 20-hour training course that prepares them to treat patients in conflicts with police and large crowds; a four-hour session is offered to medical professionals as “bridge” training.

Since the coronavirus pandemic began, the Denver Action Medic Network has added new training guidelines: Don’t go to protests if sick or in contact with those who are infected; wear a mask; give people lots of space and use hand sanitizer. Jordan Garcia, a 39-year-old medic for over 20 years who works with the network of veteran street medics, said they also warn medics about the increased risk of transmission because of protesters coughing from tear gas, and urge them to get tested for the virus after the protests.

The number of volunteer medics swelled after George Floyd’s May 25 killing in Minneapolis. In Denver alone, at least 40 people reached out to the Denver Action Medic Network for training.

On June 3, Dr. Rupa Marya, an associate professor of medicine at the University of California,San Francisco, and the co-founder of the Do No Harm Coalition, which runs street medic training in the Bay Area, hosted a national webinar attended by over 3,000 medical professionals to provide the bridge training to be a street medic. In her online bio, Marya describes the coalition as “an organization of over 450 health workers committed to structural change” in addressing health problems.

“When we see suffering, that’s where we go,” Marya said. “And right now that suffering is happening on the streets.”

In the recent Denver protests, street medics responded to major head, face and eye injuries among protesters from what are sometimes described as “kinetic impact projectiles” or “less-than-lethal” bullets shot at protesters, along with tear-gas and flash-bang stun grenade canisters that either hit them or exploded in their faces.

Garcia, who by day works for an immigrant rights nonprofit, said that these weapons are not designed to be shot directly at people.

“We’re seeing police use these less-lethal weapons in lethal ways, and that is pretty upsetting,” Garcia said about the recent protests.

Denver police Chief Paul Pazen promised to make changes, including banning chokeholds and requiring SWAT teams to turn on their body cameras. Last week, a federal judge also issued a temporary injunction to stop Denver police from using tear gas and other less-than-lethal weapons in response to a class action lawsuit, in which a medic stated he was shot multiple times by police with pepper balls while treating patients. (Last week in North Carolina police were recorded destroying medic stations.)

Denver street medic Kevin Connell, a 30-year-old emergency room nurse, said he was hit with pepper balls in the back of his medic vest – which was clearly marked by red crosses – while treating a patient. He showed up to the Denver protests every night he did not have to work, he said, wearing a Kevlar medic vest, protective goggles and a homemade gas mask fashioned from a water bottle. As a member of the Denver Action Medic Network, Connell also served at the Standing Rock protests in North Dakota in a dispute over the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“I mean, as bad as it sounds, it was only tear gas, pepper balls and rubber bullets that were being fired on us,” Connell said of his recent experience in Denver. “When I was at Standing Rock, they were using high-powered water hoses even when it was, like, freezing cold. … So I think the police here had a little bit more restraint.”

Still, first-time street medic Aj Mossman, a 31-year-old Denver emergency medical technician studying for nursing school, was shocked to be tear-gassed and struck in the back of the leg with a flash grenade while treating a protester on May 30. Mossman still has a large leg bruise.

The following night, Mossman, who uses the pronoun they, brought more protective gear, but said they are still having difficulty processing what felt like a war zone.

“I thought I understood what my black friends went through. I thought I understood what the black community went through,” said Mossman, who is white. “But I had absolutely no idea how violent the police were and how little they cared about who they hurt.”

For Butler, serving as a medic with others from various walks of life was inspiring. “They’re also out there to protect black and brown bodies. And that’s amazing,” she said. “That’s just a beautiful sight.”

This article originally appeared on Kaiser Health News, which is a nonprofit national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

On April 16, the White House released federal guidelines for reopening American businesses – followed 3 days later by specific recommendations from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for health care practices in areas with a low incidence of COVID-19. Since then, a slew of resources and guidelines have emerged to help you safely reopen your medical practice.

Depending on where you live, you may have already reopened (or even never closed), or you may be awaiting the relaxation of restrictions in your state. (As I write this on June 10, the stay-at-home order in my state, New Jersey, is being rescinded.)

The big question, of course, is whether patients can be convinced that it is safe to leave their homes and come to your office. The answer may depend on how well you time your reopening and adhere to the appropriate federal, state, and independent guidelines.

The federal guidelines have three sections: criteria, which outline conditions each region or state should satisfy before reopening; preparedness, which lists how states should prepare for reopening; and phase guidelines, which detail responsibilities of individuals and employers during distinct reopening phases.

You should pay the most attention to the “criteria” section. The key question to ask: “Has my state or region satisfied the basic criteria for reopening?”

Those criteria are as follows:

• Symptoms reported within a 14-day period should be on a downward trajectory.
• Cases documented (or positive tests as a percentage of total tests) within a 14-day period should also be on a downward trajectory.
• Hospitals should be treating all patients without crisis care. They should also have a robust testing program in place for at-risk health care workers.

If your area meets these criteria, you can proceed to the CMS recommendations. They cover general advice related to personal protective equipment (PPE), workforce availability, facility considerations, sanitation protocols, supplies, and testing capacity.

The key takeaway: As long as your area has the resources to quickly respond to a surge of COVID-19 cases, you can start offering care to non-COVID patients. Keep seeing patients via telehealth as often as possible, and prioritize surgical/procedural care and high-complexity chronic disease management before moving on to preventive and cosmetic services.

The American Medical Association has issued its own checklist of criteria for reopening your practice to supplement the federal guidelines. Highlights include the following:

• Sit down with a calendar and pick an expected reopening day. Ideally, this should include a “soft reopening.” Make a plan to stock necessary PPE and write down plans for cleaning and staffing if an employee or patient is diagnosed with COVID-19 after visiting your office.
• Take a stepwise approach so you can identify challenges early and address them. It’s important to figure out which visits can continue via telehealth, and begin with just a few in-person visits each day. Plan out a schedule and clearly communicate it to patients, clinicians, and staff.
• Patient safety is your top concern. Encourage patients to visit without companions whenever possible, and of course, all individuals who visit the office should wear a cloth face covering.
• Screen employees for fevers and other symptoms of COVID-19; remember that those records are subject to HIPAA rules and must be kept confidential. Minimize contact between employees as much as possible.
• Do your best to screen patients before in-person visits, to verify they don’t have symptoms of COVID-19. Consider creating a script that office staff can use to contact patients 24 hours before they come in. Use this as a chance to ask about symptoms, and explain any reopening logistics they should know about.
• Contact your malpractice insurance carrier to discuss whether you need to make any changes to your coverage.

This would also be a great time to review your confidentiality, privacy, and data security protocols. COVID-19 presents new challenges for data privacy – for example, if you must inform coworkers or patients that they have come into contact with someone who tested positive. Make a plan that follows HIPAA guidelines during COVID-19. Also, make sure you have a plan for handling issues like paid sick leave or reporting COVID-19 cases to your local health department.

Another useful resource is the Medical Group Management Association’s COVID-19 Medical Practice Reopening Checklist. You can use it to confirm that you are addressing all the important items, and that you haven’t missed anything.

As for me, I am advising patients who are reluctant to seek treatment that many medical problems pose more risk than COVID-19, faster treatment means better outcomes, and because we maintain strict disinfection protocols, they are far less likely to be infected with COVID-19 in my office than, say, at a grocery store.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

On April 16, the White House released federal guidelines for reopening American businesses – followed 3 days later by specific recommendations from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for health care practices in areas with a low incidence of COVID-19. Since then, a slew of resources and guidelines have emerged to help you safely reopen your medical practice.

Depending on where you live, you may have already reopened (or even never closed), or you may be awaiting the relaxation of restrictions in your state. (As I write this on June 10, the stay-at-home order in my state, New Jersey, is being rescinded.)

The big question, of course, is whether patients can be convinced that it is safe to leave their homes and come to your office. The answer may depend on how well you time your reopening and adhere to the appropriate federal, state, and independent guidelines.

The federal guidelines have three sections: criteria, which outline conditions each region or state should satisfy before reopening; preparedness, which lists how states should prepare for reopening; and phase guidelines, which detail responsibilities of individuals and employers during distinct reopening phases.

You should pay the most attention to the “criteria” section. The key question to ask: “Has my state or region satisfied the basic criteria for reopening?”

Those criteria are as follows:

• Symptoms reported within a 14-day period should be on a downward trajectory.
• Cases documented (or positive tests as a percentage of total tests) within a 14-day period should also be on a downward trajectory.
• Hospitals should be treating all patients without crisis care. They should also have a robust testing program in place for at-risk health care workers.

If your area meets these criteria, you can proceed to the CMS recommendations. They cover general advice related to personal protective equipment (PPE), workforce availability, facility considerations, sanitation protocols, supplies, and testing capacity.

The key takeaway: As long as your area has the resources to quickly respond to a surge of COVID-19 cases, you can start offering care to non-COVID patients. Keep seeing patients via telehealth as often as possible, and prioritize surgical/procedural care and high-complexity chronic disease management before moving on to preventive and cosmetic services.

The American Medical Association has issued its own checklist of criteria for reopening your practice to supplement the federal guidelines. Highlights include the following:

• Sit down with a calendar and pick an expected reopening day. Ideally, this should include a “soft reopening.” Make a plan to stock necessary PPE and write down plans for cleaning and staffing if an employee or patient is diagnosed with COVID-19 after visiting your office.
• Take a stepwise approach so you can identify challenges early and address them. It’s important to figure out which visits can continue via telehealth, and begin with just a few in-person visits each day. Plan out a schedule and clearly communicate it to patients, clinicians, and staff.
• Patient safety is your top concern. Encourage patients to visit without companions whenever possible, and of course, all individuals who visit the office should wear a cloth face covering.
• Screen employees for fevers and other symptoms of COVID-19; remember that those records are subject to HIPAA rules and must be kept confidential. Minimize contact between employees as much as possible.
• Do your best to screen patients before in-person visits, to verify they don’t have symptoms of COVID-19. Consider creating a script that office staff can use to contact patients 24 hours before they come in. Use this as a chance to ask about symptoms, and explain any reopening logistics they should know about.
• Contact your malpractice insurance carrier to discuss whether you need to make any changes to your coverage.

This would also be a great time to review your confidentiality, privacy, and data security protocols. COVID-19 presents new challenges for data privacy – for example, if you must inform coworkers or patients that they have come into contact with someone who tested positive. Make a plan that follows HIPAA guidelines during COVID-19. Also, make sure you have a plan for handling issues like paid sick leave or reporting COVID-19 cases to your local health department.

Another useful resource is the Medical Group Management Association’s COVID-19 Medical Practice Reopening Checklist. You can use it to confirm that you are addressing all the important items, and that you haven’t missed anything.

As for me, I am advising patients who are reluctant to seek treatment that many medical problems pose more risk than COVID-19, faster treatment means better outcomes, and because we maintain strict disinfection protocols, they are far less likely to be infected with COVID-19 in my office than, say, at a grocery store.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

On April 16, the White House released federal guidelines for reopening American businesses – followed 3 days later by specific recommendations from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for health care practices in areas with a low incidence of COVID-19. Since then, a slew of resources and guidelines have emerged to help you safely reopen your medical practice.

Depending on where you live, you may have already reopened (or even never closed), or you may be awaiting the relaxation of restrictions in your state. (As I write this on June 10, the stay-at-home order in my state, New Jersey, is being rescinded.)

The big question, of course, is whether patients can be convinced that it is safe to leave their homes and come to your office. The answer may depend on how well you time your reopening and adhere to the appropriate federal, state, and independent guidelines.

The federal guidelines have three sections: criteria, which outline conditions each region or state should satisfy before reopening; preparedness, which lists how states should prepare for reopening; and phase guidelines, which detail responsibilities of individuals and employers during distinct reopening phases.

You should pay the most attention to the “criteria” section. The key question to ask: “Has my state or region satisfied the basic criteria for reopening?”

Those criteria are as follows:

• Symptoms reported within a 14-day period should be on a downward trajectory.
• Cases documented (or positive tests as a percentage of total tests) within a 14-day period should also be on a downward trajectory.
• Hospitals should be treating all patients without crisis care. They should also have a robust testing program in place for at-risk health care workers.

If your area meets these criteria, you can proceed to the CMS recommendations. They cover general advice related to personal protective equipment (PPE), workforce availability, facility considerations, sanitation protocols, supplies, and testing capacity.

The key takeaway: As long as your area has the resources to quickly respond to a surge of COVID-19 cases, you can start offering care to non-COVID patients. Keep seeing patients via telehealth as often as possible, and prioritize surgical/procedural care and high-complexity chronic disease management before moving on to preventive and cosmetic services.

The American Medical Association has issued its own checklist of criteria for reopening your practice to supplement the federal guidelines. Highlights include the following:

• Sit down with a calendar and pick an expected reopening day. Ideally, this should include a “soft reopening.” Make a plan to stock necessary PPE and write down plans for cleaning and staffing if an employee or patient is diagnosed with COVID-19 after visiting your office.
• Take a stepwise approach so you can identify challenges early and address them. It’s important to figure out which visits can continue via telehealth, and begin with just a few in-person visits each day. Plan out a schedule and clearly communicate it to patients, clinicians, and staff.
• Patient safety is your top concern. Encourage patients to visit without companions whenever possible, and of course, all individuals who visit the office should wear a cloth face covering.
• Screen employees for fevers and other symptoms of COVID-19; remember that those records are subject to HIPAA rules and must be kept confidential. Minimize contact between employees as much as possible.
• Do your best to screen patients before in-person visits, to verify they don’t have symptoms of COVID-19. Consider creating a script that office staff can use to contact patients 24 hours before they come in. Use this as a chance to ask about symptoms, and explain any reopening logistics they should know about.
• Contact your malpractice insurance carrier to discuss whether you need to make any changes to your coverage.

This would also be a great time to review your confidentiality, privacy, and data security protocols. COVID-19 presents new challenges for data privacy – for example, if you must inform coworkers or patients that they have come into contact with someone who tested positive. Make a plan that follows HIPAA guidelines during COVID-19. Also, make sure you have a plan for handling issues like paid sick leave or reporting COVID-19 cases to your local health department.

Another useful resource is the Medical Group Management Association’s COVID-19 Medical Practice Reopening Checklist. You can use it to confirm that you are addressing all the important items, and that you haven’t missed anything.

As for me, I am advising patients who are reluctant to seek treatment that many medical problems pose more risk than COVID-19, faster treatment means better outcomes, and because we maintain strict disinfection protocols, they are far less likely to be infected with COVID-19 in my office than, say, at a grocery store.
 

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].